Windows Vista Update

He's just nutty

I could probably take every sentence out of your post and pointed out what was wrong with it, but it'd be a waste of my time.

> It's a slick, clean operating system with a clean interface.

It's a heavy, buggy operating system that using it feels like driving a car with square wheels made of metal. You can't stand the noise, and you never know when it's gonna fall apart.

> Have there been problems? yes. Have there been bugs? Yes. I will however go on record as saying that I have recently had NO problems with Windows Vista.

Well, lucky you. Or does 'recently' imply 'since today morning'?

> It's fast: With a decent PC, Windows Vista is the fastest consumer O.S. that Microsoft have ever developed. My boot up time is approximately 27 seconds (till login prompt).

On my supercomputer-ish laptop, Vista loads about as fast as fedora does on my broken down old desktop bought back in 2002.
Vista can unpack a 1 MB zip file in just under 9 minutes, while fedora does it in less than a second. Same goes for copying and moving files, when a larger number of files is involved.

> It's reliable: I haven't had to worry about spyware and viruses the same way I did for XP. I use anti spyware/virus programs and my PC is healthy as ever.

Too bad. You had to pay for vista, and then pay for antispyware and antivirus software.

> Remember people, it is the responsibility of the various VENDORS to make their applications Vista compatible, not Microsoft.

Or, it is upto the people to just stick to operating systems where they get applications that can work for them. Like perhaps Windows XP, or a Linux distribution, where you get software to do pretty much anything for free.

> People, you really should think about buying new hardware. A lot of you whining about Vista have older PC's.

Yes we do. Now, not only do we have to shell out a lot of money for Vista, we need to buy hardware too. Whenever Microsoft says that their new product is 'faster', they generally mean that their new product runs around 10% faster than the older one on a 500% faster computer. I wonder if that adds up to 'faster' or 'slower'?

> Look, with Vista (as in life), you get what you pay for.

With Linux (and several other alternatives out there), you get lots that you never had to pay for.

> Also, just buy Vista Ultimate and be done with it. You might as well have all the features available to you for a few dollars more.

That's absolutely crappy advice. In fact, it makes me think you do work for Microsoft. Why would anybody pay for things they don't need, just because it's just "a few (hundred or so) dollars more"?

> Some older or less tech savvy people SHOULD be stopped when they are about to screw up their PC's!

The point is that they aren't. MS should have been more worried about stopping them from running potentially malicious software. Instead, it issues a warning whenever you try to do some administrative tasks (even if you are the administrator). This gets in your way, and the older and less tech savvy people go about running all kinds of dangerous applications they might find on pen drives, in their mail, and stuck to the bottoms of their chairs with bubble gum. Vista never says anything about those.

That kind of sums it up. Moving down the post assured me that it was solely based on someone's sentiments towards Microsoft, or an Operating System that looks good on the outside. Nothing that was stated in the post was backed up by any technically accurate facts or figures. If you think, "Vista rocks because I love it," well, the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.